swiss tournament rules? brocken

Spell-check? Most definitely brocken.

Don't even get me started on the lack of capital letters in the subject.

So It does have it's issues in this game, though the issue here was that the correct number of rounds was not played.

That's the number or rounds required to get a clear winner. The OP is complaining about players making the top 4. If you want a clear difference between 4th and 5th place, how many rounds do you need for that?

To get a clear resolution on the difference between any two adjacent places, you need a round-robin format--so you need rounds equal to the number of players minus one.

In this case, you're right: they did 3 rounds and then a cut to the top 4 (meaning a total of 6 rounds), which is a bit irregular but not a real problem from a technical standpoint. The issue (or perhaps "issue") is that two of those top 4 had one win and one bye, and another round of Swiss play might have fixed that--either by weeding those players out of the cut, or by giving them a more convincing record.

The Swiss-System is also not designed around a non-binary scoring system where a Win is worth 3 or 5 points.

Chess is not exactly a binary scoring system either. You can score 1, 1/2 or 0 points.

So It does have it's issues in this game, though the issue here was that the correct number of rounds was not played.

That's the number or rounds required to get a clear winner. The OP is complaining about players making the top 4. If you want a clear difference between 4th and 5th place, how many rounds do you need for that?

Besides, chess tournaments with 200+ players and 7 rounds are not uncommon. And nobody complains about sharing the price money. You can have nice tournaments with less than the correct number of rounds.

Chess is Win:Loss:Draw with not Full Win;Mod Win:Loss Draw. In an 8 man Chess event I can't lose the event if I win all 3 of my rounds, but I can in X-wing. I could place as low as 3rd, behind two players I beat.

You have no guarantee with the X-wing point system that you will have an undefeated winner at the end the way the Swiss system is intended. Your undefeated player may not be your highest point scorer. Which is why you have to switch to a Top Cut.

By not running the correct number of Swiss rounds the Bye was overly impacting and allowed two players with 50:50 records to make the Top 4. Those players, with a possible 10 points, could have beaten out an undefeated player.

And that's great the 6-7 undefeated Chess players at the end of the event split the prize money, how exactly is that suppose to work when you have one Regional/Nationals/Worlds Bye to award?

And that's great the 6-7 undefeated Chess players at the end of the event split the prize money, how exactly is that suppose to work when you have one Regional/Nationals/Worlds Bye to award?

"Poorly" would be my guess. Although I suppose everybody could go home with a Solomonic one-sixth of an acrylic range ruler...

I do agree that having win/loss as the primary scoring is a bit better than match points. It eliminates those weird instances where 2 full wins are better than 3 modified win. Though match points as first primary tiebreaker, followed by SOS would still be used almost as often as it currently does.

That's about my only issue with tournament scoring. Someone always gets screwed when you go to tiebreakers.

My argument for these situations of "all I get is Modified Wins and came in 3rd" you failed to win your match, hence modified win. It would turn into an ugly tournament system if it were only win/lose/draw. So how would that work? if neither player eliminates all the ships its a draw for both? Simply give the full win to the player with the most points left on the board? in the last scenario what happens if I just get a slight advantage over me opponent in points and run the rest of the game, ducking , dodging and hiding behind asteroids. Is that worthy of a full win? Giving both players a draw for not finishing would also turn into a run and hide situation as their last remaining ship is worth 1 match point. You have to have a system that both rewards and punishes games that did not complete. Knowing the system, strength of schedule I happily give the full win to my opponent every time as those 2 point help me as much as they help my opponent.

I've started to TO events at my FLGS. I've explain to the group as they register I am not participating as a player in the event unless we have an uneven number. To that point I also exclude myself from any prize support.

"an extra player to play, keeps the byes away"

My argument for these situations of "all I get is Modified Wins and came in 3rd" you failed to win your match, hence modified win. It would turn into an ugly tournament system if it were only win/lose/draw. So how would that work? if neither player eliminates all the ships its a draw for both? Simply give the full win to the player with the most points left on the board? in the last scenario what happens if I just get a slight advantage over me opponent in points and run the rest of the game, ducking , dodging and hiding behind asteroids. Is that worthy of a full win? Giving both players a draw for not finishing would also turn into a run and hide situation as their last remaining ship is worth 1 match point. You have to have a system that both rewards and punishes games that did not complete. Knowing the system, strength of schedule I happily give the full win to my opponent every time as those 2 point help me as much as they help my opponent.

Early in the game's lifespan, my tourney list was a 5-ship Imperial list with two missiles (Vader + Swarm + Concussion, Tempest + Concussion, Black + Squad Leader, Academy, Academy). The alpha-strike worked, but as usual for Imperial mirror matches in Wave 1, it soon degraded into a contest of whose green dice would fail first. Most Imp/Imp games back in those days ended in modified wins.

Anyway, I went 3-0 with three modified wins; in no case was the eventual outcome in doubt, but my score was essentially handicapped by pulling three Imperial matchups. I ended the night in fourth place behind two 2-1 Rebel players, and I'm still irritated about it--not so much personally, but because it points to a fundamental inequity in the current tourney scoring for X-wing. A loss should never be worth more than a win, but under the right circumstances it currently is.

In an 8 man Chess event I can't lose the event if I win all 3 of my rounds, but I can in X-wing.

That's a very good point.

It eliminates those weird instances where 2 full wins are better than 3 modified win.

I don't like that either. IMHO the awarded points are wrong. You should award the same number of points for every game, regardless of which player receives how many. Another issue is that a modified loss is worse than a full loss due to the effect on sos. In the current format win/modified win/modified loss/loss are 5/3/0/0. Make that 5/3/2/0, 4/3/1/0 or 3/2/1/0. The last is used in hockey (not NHL) to good effect. That sport has two different types of win/loss. Sort of.